DAVID SIEGEL AND NORMA SIEGEL, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEERWOOD PLACE CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Siegels sued the owner and manager of their rental townhouse for injuries sustained when David Siegel fell down stairs with a loose carpet. Although the trial court improperly applied an outdated legal standard requiring proof of fraud and concealment, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment because the defendants had no actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
Although the trial court erred in applying the Colon standard requiring proof of fraud and concealment (which had been overruled by Mansur v. Eubanks), summary judgment was properly entered because the defendants lacked actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. After a tenant takes possession, a landlord has a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care upon notice of dangerous defects, but no such duty arises when the landlord has no notice.
[1] A landlord has a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care to repair dangerous defective conditions upon notice of their existence by the tenant, unless waived by the t…
[2] A landlord is not liable for injuries to a tenant in the absence of fraud or concealment when the landlord has surrendered possession and control of the premises.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“After the tenant takes possession, the landlord has a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care to repair dangerous defective conditions upon notice of their existence by the tenant, unless waived by the tenant.”
Establishes the correct legal standard that overruled Colon; landlords must act upon notice of dangerous conditions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Siegel fell down the stairs of a rental townhouse owned by Deerwood Place Corporation and managed by The Gannon Management Company Florida. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty To Repair cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs, David Siegel and Norma Siegel, appeal from an adverse final summary judgment and from the denial of their motion for rehearing. We affirm.
In the underlying personal injury action, the Siegels brought suit against the owner of the rental townhouse where they lived, Deer-wood Place Corporation, and the management company that operated it, The Gannon Management Company Florida. The Siegels sought damages for the injuries sustained by David Siegel when he fell down the stairs of the townhouse. They alleged that the stairway in the townhouse had been negligently designed, installed, and maintained. Specifically, they claimed that David Siegel fell because the carpet on the stairs was loose. The defendants answered the complaint and filed affirmative defenses stating that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defects in the stairway.
Thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that they did not have notice of the alleged dangerous condition. At the summary judgment hearing, the defendants argued that not only did they not have notice of the alleged dangerous condition, but also that the plaintiffs had failed to allege and demonstrate “fraud and concealment” on the part of the defendants as required by Colon v. Lara, 389 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The trial court granted summary judgment citing to Colon in its order. The plaintiffs’ appeal follows.
The Siegels contend that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment based on the authority of Colon. Although we agree with the plaintiffs, we affirm the summary judgment.
The Colon court held that “where the landlord has surrendered the entire possession and control of the premises to the tenant and where no fraud or concealment by the landlord is shown, the landlord is not liable for injuries to either tenant or third person.” Colon, 389 So. 2d at 1072. In support of this holding, the Colon court cited to Brooks v. Peters, 157 Fla. 141, 25 So. 2d 205 (1946)(holding that where landlord has surrendered possession and control, tenant may not hold landlord liable for injuries in the absence of fraud and concealment). In 1981, the Florida Supreme Court overruled Brooks and held, “After the tenant takes possession, the landlord has a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care to repair dangerous defective conditions upon notice of their existence by the tenant, unless waived by the tenant.” Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So. 2d 1328, 1330 (Fla.1981). Therefore, the trial court erred by applying the standard enunciated in' Colon.
However, even though the trial court failed to apply the correct standard, we find that summary judgment was still appropriate because the defendants lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Mansur, 401 So. 2d at 1330; Torres v. Garcia, 694 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The plaintiffs’ depositions clearly indicate that, prior to the accident, they never ob served any problems with the stairs and that, prior to the accident, they never reported to the defendants any problems with the stairs.
Additionally, there is no evidence that tends to establish that the defendants knew or should have known of the alleged dangerous condition. The plaintiffs argue that their expert’s affidavit detailing the discovery of construction staples in the area where Mr. Siegel fell creates a presumption of notice on the part of the defendants. They further argue that a reasonable inference can be drawn from the presence of the construction staples that the defendants improperly installed the carpet or that they negligently attempted to repair the defective carpeting and conceal the dangerous condition. We reject this argument because the plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence regarding who installed the staples or how long the staples had been there prior to the accident. Hamideh v. K-Mart Corp., 648 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 659 So. 2d 271 (Fla.1995); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Friedman v. Biscayne Restaurant, Inc., 254 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
The plaintiffs’ remaining points lack merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grant v. Thornton, 749 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ence against a landlord, the injured tenant need only allege that the landlord had either actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous code violation for a sufficient time to make a correction of the condition. See Siegel v. Deerwood Place Corp., 701 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). It has also been held that a landlord’s duty for negligent failure to repair a defective condition does not require that the condition be considered inherently dangerous. See…
-
Smith v. Grove Apts., LLC, 976 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…had either actual or constructive knowledge of the condition or of a statutory code violation for a sufficient time in which to make a correction. See Grant v. Thornton, 749 So. 2d [*585] 529, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Siegel v. Deerwood Place Corp., 701 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Bennett M. Lifter, Inc. v. Varnado, 480 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). .The dissenting opinion’s misapprehension of a landlord’s statutory and common law duty in this regard has unfortunately caused it to mischaracterize the is…1 / 2
-
Markell v. MI CASA, Ltd., 711 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…idence that Appellees had notice of a dangerous condition; neither should the allegation of the Delaney affidavit be sufficient to constitute constructive notice. See Fitzgerald v. Cestari, 569 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.1990); Siegel v. Deerwood Place Corp., 701 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 1981)
- Brooks v. Peters, 157 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1946)
- Kinkelaar v. Luella S. Kinkelaar, 157 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1946)
- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Friedman v. Biscayne Rest., Inc., 254 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Hamideh v. K-Mart Corp., 648 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Riguard Colon v. Serafín Lara and Carmen Lara, 389 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 389 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Bentley Ocean View, Inc. v. Real Est. Enters., Inc., 694 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)